|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
OR: Gun Ban Introduced in the State Legislature
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On Thursday, anti-gun Rep. Carla Piluso introduced a draconian gun ban bill, House Bill 3223, that would impose California-style gun control in Oregon by banning many commonly owned semi-automatic firearms used by countless gun owners for target shooting, hunting, and self-defense. HB 3223 has not yet been referred to a committee for consideration at this time. Please contact your state legislators and urge them to OPPOSE HB 3223 and other anti-gun legislation. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(3/2/2019)
|
An imaginary Regime with no more limits on power,
a Totalitarian State. But actually, knowingly depriving citizens of their rights guaranteed in the Constitution is a criminal act, a federal crime.
Serve.. Not Rule.. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
